Fahrenheit 451 Formula

Status Quo: The firemen burn books with the intention of destroying books and furthermore all of literature.

Trouble: Their logo is the phoenix, which seems to imply that the books would rise up from the ashes instead of stay dead.

Question: What are the true intentions of the firemen?

Claim: The firemen realize that there is something beyond just the written/printed word, thought. However much they want to eliminate it to have total sameness and "happiness" in the society, they know they can't. Because of those like the Book People, the firemen are at a loss of control over so big an issue. So instead, they choose a more accessible scapegoat, to appear to the people as though they are in power: books. They put on the big circuslike show of book burnings to manipulate people into thinking that when books are burned, them and everything in them stays dead forever. Since the people are so entirely brainwashed, they never stop to question what is missing.

Fahrenheit 451 Exploratory Draft

Mollie Gordon

Literature 12/18/14

Fahrenheit 451 Exploratory Draft

            My proposal is that I am interested in writing about the true intentions of the firemen because I want to understand why they do certain things like burn books, yet use the phoenix as their symbol, which doesn’t add up. One way to consider this is that the firemen destroy books, all the while knowing that the ideas in books cannot be destroyed. They give the people the show of them burning books without letting them know that the ideas in the books will always arise from the flames.

            Granger discusses the phoenix near the end of the book. He says the bird “Built a pure and burnt himself up… but every time he burnt himself up he sprang out of the ashes, he got himself born all over again” (Bradbury 163). This idea of dying but not really dying directly ties into books. Everyone is told that books are being destroyed, but isn’t there a part of them that isn’t? Something in them that can and always will remain?

            I’m not sure if the firemen are aware of this, but the use of the phoenix as their logo could either be pure stupidity or a hidden message. A message that no one would get because no one reads books.

            Well, no one is a strong term.

            Maybe the firemen are aware that they are secretly helpless against the undefeatable enemy of not books, but thinking. So they use the books as a sort of scapegoat to make themselves seem in control. That’s what their whole world is based around, right? Control? Like when they can’t find Montag when he’s run off so they kill a random guy to never miss a beat. Could book burning be like this for them?

            There’s definitely a repeated idea of book burning being a show, a circus, really. Full of smoke and mirrors and fire eaters and torch jugglers. All these things are not only pure entertainment, but pure lies. Fire eaters don’t actually eat the fire, they know a trick. Everything is just a trick. But the way the show of book burning actually being effective is put on, it seems like reality, just like the parlor walls.

            It’s manipulative, it’s a power play, and no one knows enough to know better.

            Why does it work so well? Because like Beatty says, people love fire. The fact that they always wait to burn books till night because it “looks prettier” has no sense of urgency. If books were really a threat, they’d be far more urgent. But it’s the spectacle that counts not the content.

            Everything is about entertainment, but everything is also about community. Maybe the reason why the firemen leave the Book People alone is because they know they’re not likely to do any damage – no one would take them seriously. If it’s really just about maintaining the community, they are quite successful. There are few odd ducks like Clarisse who question things, and when they rise up they usually fall just as fast.

            Nothing comes in, nothing comes out. People don’t seem to visit. Probably because exterior influence would be a threat. That’s why they work so hard to keep people uneducated – because they’d look for more. They’d look past the façade.

            But where do you look? This is something Faber brings up when he says “No, no, it’s not books at all you’re looking for! Take it where you can find it, in old phonograph records, old motion pictures, and in old friends; look for it in nature and look for it in yourself” (Bradbury 82). Interestingly out of the whole list the only resource that Montag actually has access to is the final one: himself. So is that the only way to keep these things going: meditation, self-reflection? But in this community it takes someone else to catalyst such a thing.

            So it has to come from somewhere else. For Clarisse it came from nature, as Montag guesses when he reaches the land where the Book People roam.

            Montag didn’t have to look far to find a deep-seated curiosity to learn, to know, because ultimately it’s in every one of us. So do book burnings take this away or only prolong it? It’s definitely easier to look for something when you know it exists somewhere.

            Also – if the firemen are the actors in the show, wouldn’t they know that they are acting? Are they conscious that they are leading people astray? Or is it so deep-rooted in them that it’s unconscious? Beatty seems conscious of it. His death and all indicate he knows more than he’s saying. And when Montag the “minstrel man” thinks of winking at himself in the mirror, this implies that he has a secret with himself (or maybe the other part of him) that requires the winking. Maybe all firemen have these two halves of themselves, this division between mind-body.

            And there’s such a big emphasis on the casting of the firemen. Montag has a realization at one time that the vital qualifying quality of a firemen is that you look the part. How interesting. If it was really about destroying literature I don’t think appearances would be such a focus.

            Watching a book burning doesn’t require thought. That’s why it’s so effective. They don’t contemplate. They stand and watch. And it’s so incredibly effective that all the people become sort of hypnotized by it. Doors open all down the street when the “carnival”/the burning of Montag’s books sets up, and people run out of houses all down the street when the book lady burns down her house.

            That’s another thing. People like the book lady are a threat because they disrupt the show, they add in extra lines that haven’t been rehearsed. And yet a good actor like Beatty doesn’t lose his dignity in such a situation – he keeps it always.

            When Montag has left the city, he says “He felt as if he had a left a stage behind and many actors” (Bradbury 140). But the ironic part is that he is one of the actors he’s left behind. All firemen are actors in the big play of pretending book burnings can actually destroy the values in books, the grand charade that fools the audience completely. But if acting simply isn’t your niche (as Clarisse hints to Montag), sometimes all you need is someone else to make you realize this.

Fahrenheit 451 Text Explorations

Passage 1 – page 113

At this point in the text, Beatty, Montag, and the others have just answered the alarm to come burn books that has led them directly to Montag’s house. They are currently standing outside Montag’s house, and Beatty is about to start admonishing Montag.

I chose this passage because it talks about how book burning serves as a sort of superficial entertainment for the people. I hope that really exploring this passage will help me follow the lead of how book burning is all just an unsubstantial show and a power play. The firemen don’t want to let the people know that the ideas in books will exist even after the books have been destroyed.

Passage:                                                                          

“Lights flickered on[1] and house doors opened all down the street,[2] to watch the carnival[3] set up. Montag and Beatty stared, one[4] with dry satisfaction, the other with disbelief, at the house before them,[5] the main ring[6] in which torches[7] would be juggled[8] and fire eaten[9].”

---

1: Word Definition/Wording/Connection: The Oxford English Dictionary defines “flicker” as “Unsteadfast, wavering.” This is interesting to me because it implies the lights don’t just turn on, they flicker on, something that seems strange considering all the technology. Another OED definition of flicker is “Of a bird: To flutter, to hover.” There’s something more natural and less technological about flickering. In fact, there’s a sense of it that’s a bit like fire. Not fire’s violent, destructive side, but the warm, revealing side as demonstrated at the beginning in “But the strangely comfortable and rare and gently flattering light of the candle” (Bradbury 7) or near the end in “Above the hands, motionless faces that were only moved and tossed and flickered with firelight” (Bradbury 146). The use of a word that implies beauty before the murder that Montag is about to commit seems strange, and also odd considering it’s describing the actions of the technology-obsessed citizens, when it’s usually used for people in Montag’s life like Clarisse and the Book People. Maybe this is because the crime Montag is about to commit will ultimately bring him closer to the Book People, to literature?

2: Wording/Connection: There’s sort of this mechanical, almost creepily in sync feeling to “all down the street.” Bradbury could’ve said “the doors opened” and ended it there. But “all down the street” demonstrates how even though it’s late at night, even though the people should be sleeping, they all get up and out to watch the show. This idea of them all do actions at the same time also occurs earlier on in the book in “People ran out of houses all down the street” (Bradbury 40) which is what happens when the lady burns her own house down. Interestingly, both of these in sync, “all down the street” moments revolve around book burnings.

 

3: Word Definition/Figurative Language/Connection: The Oxford English Dictionary defines “carnival” as both “A fun-fair; circus” and “Any season or course of feasting, riotous revelry, or indulgence.” Carnival serves as a metaphor here. There is a fun, entertaining element to book burnings that connects with the entire entertainment theme in the book, but there’s also this idea of “feasting.” It connects to the last two words of the passage: “fire eaten.” These people eat fire. Which is interesting, because the salamander (significance – part of the first section title and one of the logos of the firemen) is defined by the OED as “A lizard-like animal supposed to live in, or to be able to endure, fire” but ALSO as “A fire-eating juggler.” Interesting. And this idea of “eating” what is provided to you, no more, no less, ties in to “Going away from the people who ate shadows for breakfast and steam for lunch and vapors for supper” (Bradbury 140).

 

4: Wording/Style: We know our subjects in this sentence are Montag and Beatty, but Bradbury intentionally, I think, says “one” and “the other,” instead of telling us which is which. We can make a pretty good guess that Beatty is satisfied and Montag in disbelief. But maybe these don’t only represent Beatty and Montag, but the two different ways you can view book burnings. This “dry satisfaction” is something the firemen experience, and something that Montag used to experience, when they burn books. The disbelief is the audience reaction, when you are at the carnival, and you can’t figure out how that person is doing that thing. Disbelief does not require understanding, which is a big part of the objective of the firemen. Daze the people with something, distract them with smoke and mirrors, and hide the truth.

 

 

5: Syntax/Style/Figurative Language/Connection: Bradbury uses the comma after “them” to join the literal meaning to the figurative. Montag’s house is like the main ring in the book, but Bradbury wants to make sure we get both sides of the metaphor. He also does this earlier in this passage, with the comma after “all down the street.” Lights are flickering and doors opening, but a carnival is not really being set up. It is in the minds of the people, especially in the minds of the firemen.

 

6: Figurative Language: Montag’s house is not literally the “main ring” in a circus, but in a figurative sense it certainly is. He’s the main character, so his house and his life are the main ring on which we get to speculate. But as a general rule, the person whose house is about to get burned becomes the main ring, the center of attention. Burning is an enormous, crowd-pleasing spectacle.

 

 

7: Word Definition/Figurative Language: This is figurative because the firemen don’t actually use torches to burn. It continues with the theme of symbols connected with carnivals. The OED defines “torch” as “A light to be carried in the hand, consisting of a stick of resinous wood… or other inflammable substance.” Notice it’s defined as a light, not as a weapon or even a flame. The thing about torches is they have a handle, so the bearer is able to keep the fire from harming themselves, and if it is used as a weapon, to control who it harms. The torchbearer demonstrates a tremendous amount of power, which means this could be a symbol for the power the firemen exert over the community. Another point is that torches can be used both for light and for damage. It depends on the person using it. All the fire-related tools of the firemen are undoubtedly violent, like the flamethrowers. Interesting, then, to use the word “torch” instead of “flamethrower,” implying that you have a choice in how you use your power.

 

8: Word Definition/Figurative Language/Connection: The OED defines “juggle” as “To amuse or entertain people with jesting, buffoonery, tricks, etc.” This is definitely figurative language because the firemen don’t in reality “juggle” fire, and once again develops on the theme of presentation and entertainment. This idea of “jesting” and “buffoonery” makes me think of Montag’s “He knew that when he returned to the firehouse, he might wink at himself, a minstrel man” (Bradbury 4). There’s this idea of acting as a jester and of dumbing down to entertain. This is something not only Montag but maybe even the other firemen, at least Beatty, have to do. Everything they do is about pleasing the audience. Also, the word “tricks” in the OED definition of juggle makes me think of mischief and of mind games. Which are what the firemen play on the people and in turn on themselves.

9: Wording: Fire eaters don’t actually eat fire, they extinguish it with their breath which all involves precise timing. The audience thinks they’re in danger, but in reality, if they’re well-trained, they’re not. Just like how the books aren’t really the “danger” to the stupidity that people are brainwashed with – the Book People and more importantly the ideas behind literature are the real danger.

 

 

 

Passage 2 – page 39

At this point in the text, Montag and the firemen are at the house of the book lady who has just taken out a match to burn her own house and herself rather than let the firemen do it. The lady has not burned the house yet, but is about to, and the firemen are in the process of reacting.

I chose this passage because in contrast with my previous exploration where the book burning “show” is being set up and all is well, here something has gone wrong to disrupt the show. I think examining Beatty’s reaction closely could help to unearth some more interesting info about the motives and lives of the firemen.

Passage:

“Captain Beatty[1], keeping his dignity[2], backed slowly[3] through the front door, his pink[4] face burnt and shiny[5] from a thousand fires[6] and night excitements[7].”

---

1: Syntax: This whole sentence is split up choppily with commas, starting with the one after Beatty’s name. I think this could perhaps be a way that Bradbury is expressing the mood – very hesitant, very slow, in contrast to everything else in the world that moves fast. The commas hold our attention, like Beatty is trying to.

 

2: Word Definition/Wording/Connection: “Dignity” is defined by the OED as “The quality of being worthy or honorable,” “Persons of high estate or rank,” and also having “gravity.” These are all really interesting. This idea of being worthy sort of connects to the idea of performance. Beatty is the main actor, not this lady. He is worthy of the main role. He doesn’t want to let her steal his spotlight. Which sort of connects to his general attitude towards everyone – when he lectures Montag at his house, he is very uppity and rarely lets him get a word in edgewise. The next definition, of being of “high rank,” definitely connects to Beatty. He is the fire chief and holds enormous power. That’s why Bradbury makes sure to refer to him as Captain Beatty at the beginning of this sentence. The last definition, “having gravity,” is really fascinating. I interpret this as having presence, maybe even going as far as stage presence. Beatty is a very focused person, always having his wits about him, and not even letting something like this make him totally lose his cool. He has a lot of gravity and inertia as well. He gains attention and will do anything to keep it. These are qualities that Montag doesn’t have.

 

3: Wording: I find it interesting that Beatty’s backs away “slowly.” Considering this spontaneous power shift, you’d expect him to have a more spontaneous reaction. But he remains composed, or at least seems to. (It’s possible he’s just behaving like a “minstrel man.”) It seems like a reaction in a movie or a play, not a reaction you’d have in real life.

 

4: Word Definition/Connection: The OED defines “pink” of course as a color, but there are two additional definitions that I found interesting: “Of an eye: small, winking, or half-shut” and “A very small person or creature; a brat; an elf.” This is definitely over analyzing, but the idea of Beatty’s face being a winking face is too good to pass up. He’s winking at the audience as if to say, “this is just an act, folks!” Reminds me again of Montag’s “He knew that when he returned to the firehouse, he might wink at himself, a minstrel man, burnt-corked, in the mirror” (Bradbury 4). The difference is that it takes a mirror for Montag to wink at himself whereas Beatty does it constantly – he is continually described as “pink.” The “small brat” definition is kind of funny, which could be the point. Beatty is supposed to be tough, yet is described as pink, a word we associate more with silliness and girlishness. Interesting.

 

5: Word Definition: “Shiny” is defined by the OED as “Having a bright or glistening surface” and “Beaming, radiant. Also, apparently excellent.” These are interesting because having a “bright or glistening surface” doesn’t mean that what’s under the surface is bright and glistening. The word “shiny” in general has a superficial feel. This idea of “beaming” is something I associate largely with pride. Is Beatty proud of the woman in some way? Or proud of himself? Next, being “apparently excellent” doesn’t mean you actually are excellent. Shiny overall has the smoke and mirrors vibe that most everything Beatty does has. Beatty is in fact scared by this woman’s actions, but pretends not to be because “the show must go on.”

6: Wording/Connection: Beatty’s face is shiny at least partially from these “thousand fires.” It’s not just the prospect of this fire that is showing in his face. It’s all of them. He generalizes, packaging all of these fires which had unique books and unique people involved into one big thing. It makes them, individually seem significant, like how, when Beatty is lecturing Montag, he says “Every fireman, sooner or later, hits this” (Bradbury 53). It belittles individual events or individual people. It’s a form of desensitization and is one of Beatty’s very effective tools of power play. And there’s a bragging quality to it to. He’s caused a thousand fires! His shiny, burnt face is his battle scar, like how a musician gets calluses on their fingers from playing frequently. He wears his like a trophy.

7: Wording: These fires for Beatty are “night excitements.” They’re fun! They’re exciting! Just like how Montag used to enjoy it, there’s something about putting on this show for people that Beatty really gets off on. There’s a show every night, and it’s live theatre, so for the firemen disruptions like this woman have they’re exciting side too. He can add her to his list of “close calls.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Passage 3 – page 82

At this point in the text, Montag has come to Faber’s house for the first time, hoping that he can give him some answers. Faber is beginning to explain to Montag the true nature of books, and what is missing from them that is affecting them at the present time.

I chose this passage because I hope to find more information in it about how there is an element in books that cannot be destroyed, even though the firemen put so much emphasis on book destruction.

Passage:

“No, no[1], it’s not books at all[2] you’re looking for! Take it where you can find it[3], in old[4] phonograph records, old motion pictures, and in old friends[5]; look[6] for it in nature[7] and look for it in yourself[8].”

---

1: Syntax/Wording: There’s this carefully arranged repetition with commas of “No, no,” that I think is worth looking at. Faber repeats this, maybe to a certain degree for emphasis. It also has a very dismissive attitude for the beginning of the sentence. He’s pretty much saying to Montag “you’ve been looking in all the wrong places.” Interesting that he’s so dismissive.

 

2: Wording/Connection: Faber doesn’t say it’s not books Montag’s looking for, he says it’s not books at all that he’s looking to. Very dismissive. Is he implying that the focus on books is mainly superficial, because that information will always live on with someone? Does he know this? Perhaps he’s trying to say that the answers aren’t in books, they’re in the ideas. Even when there are books, people can read them without getting anything out of them, or even misinterpreting them, as Beatty points out to Montag when he says “What traitors books can be! You think they’re backing you up, and they turn on you” (Bradbury 107).

 

3: Wording/Style/Connection: Faber, by saying this, is implying that Montag can find “it.” The ironic thing is that Montag doesn’t have phonograph records or old motion pictures (if they even still exist) and his only friend was Clarisse, but she died and he only knew her for a short time anyway, although he did remark to her “Why is it, I feel I’ve known you so many years?” (Bradbury 28) So why is Faber telling Montag to look for this concept in things he has no access to? Is he claiming they are entirely unattainable? Or perhaps just that they don’t exist in material things anymore…

4: Word Definition/Wording/Connection: One of the interesting OED definitions of “old” is “To grow old; to deteriorate through age.” This idea of deterioration could definitely be applicable to books. There’s quite the emphasis on “old,” since it’s said three whole times in a row. It’s possible Faber is not only talking about books but also about himself? He does constantly refer to himself as an old man, for example when he says “I am a cowardly old fool” (Bradbury 90) He does seem to be reminiscing, as all the “old” things he lists, at least the first two, likely don’t exist. He has been in his house for a very long time with little outside influence. Maybe he’s stuck in a bit of a time warp.

 

5: Word Definition: “Friend” is defined by the OED as “A person with whom one has developed a close and informal relationship of mutual trust and intimacy.” The only real friend that we know of in Montag’s life was Clarisse and she’s gone now, but this definition was definitely something their friendship was a prime example of. No one else has this kind of friendship though – Clarisse couldn’t find it in people her own age, and Mildred’s friendships are all based on watching TV.

 

6: Wording: The verb switches from “take” to “look.” Interesting that the places Faber tells Montag to look are more attainable than the things Faber tells Montag to take. Maybe this verb switch is distinguishing between past options and present options (even though Faber might not know that). Also, the two options listed with “look” are the ones that Montag ends up choosing.

 

7: Wording/Connection: This is an interesting option because “nature” as in that kind with plants and animals doesn’t seem to exist until you get to where Montag fled to at the end. Nature was the place Clarisse looked to find “it,” probably by going to the same place where Montag ends up, as he guesses in “Once, long ago, Clarisse had walked here, where he was walking now” (Bradbury 145). Could Faber possibly mean human nature as well? But there isn’t much human nature in this world.

 

8: Wording/Connection: Fascinating that “yourself” is the last one Faber gives him. It’s the only one immediately doable. The others aren’t even options, or he’d have to travel a long ways to reach them. But “yourself” is something that takes no travelling. Or does it? Montag’s been doing a lot of self-reflection, but maybe not the kind Faber is intending. Montag finds a poetic, well-written phrase in himself when he says “That’s the good thing about dying; when you’ve nothing to lose, you run any risk you want” (Bradbury 85). He doesn’t need to look that far into himself to find it. Maybe that’s Faber’s point. Literature is spontaneous, not planned, not scripted. It’s what’s missing from this world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fahrenheit 451 Topic List

Some topic ideas for my Fahrenheit 451 essay:

Firstly, the concept of the phoenix. It's the symbol on Captain Beatty's hat, which makes sense because of its association with fire and burning. But when Granger talks about the phoenix at the end of the book, he tells us how the phoenix burns and is reborn from the flames. This is troubling because wouldn't that mean that when firemen burn things, they will always spring up and be born anew? That they can never truly destroy books? This could possibly be a way that Bradbury is trying to get his point across.

Next, on Montag's relationship with the Hound - at the beginning of the book when Montag says he's worried about the Hound changing and "coming alive," he's right only in that the Hound is changing because Beatty is programming it to react to Montag. So if the Hound is a symbol for Montag, and both undergo a "change", but the Hound's change is only due to programming, then is Montag really changing, or only being programmed (by Clarisse) to seem like he is?

Granger's book is The Fingers in the Glove; the Proper Relationship between the Individual and Society, but this seems ironic considering that he left the normal society and went with the Book People to form his own. So is his rule of thumb for the relationship between the individual and society that if you don't like how society is run, leave it? Just thought this was interesting.

Beatty is portrayed as antagonistic, but is he really the villain of 451? Who is the villain of 451? General question, but interesting.

Beatty again - why does he go through all the trouble of confusing Montag, messing with him, competing with him, only to let Montag kill him? The fact that he doesn't try to avoid death and that he apparently wanted to died contradicts with everything else we know about him. So: why?

Why was Montag stealing so many books before he even met Clarisse, but he didn't do anything about it like reuniting with Faber until he met Clarisse? So in other words, why did it take Clarisse's meeting to propel him forward? What about meeting her made him take action?

When Montag has left the city, he feels like he has left a stage and many actors. This idea of things and people in his life being part of one big play is consistent throughout, and is interesting because at first glance he is the only one putting on an act. Eventually we realize that many other people, like Mildred for example, are doing this too. So, why does Montag see the people as the show and the entertainment instead of the TV programs?

Montag continually has a disconnect between his mind and body that has to do with his "two halves." But is there really that mind-body disconnect, or is it just his way of not taking responsibility for his actions?

All the people in this book are supposed to be "happy" because of their entertainment-based lifestyles. But as we find out, Mildred has tried to commit suicide at least a couple times, and throughout the book we hear about numerous deaths - many of them suicides. So what does that truly say about the "happiness" that these people are being provided?

There is a general theme of color that could be connecting to race, or could be something beyond that. Would definitely be interesting to explore.

Also, lots of talk about mirrors. What is their significance?

Process Post on Close Reading Fahrenheit 451

Over the course of this unit, we've been close reading portions of Fahrenheit 451 to think about the book deeply and gain a better understanding of it. We've used a multitude of close reading tools to do this, but there were definitely some in particular that I want to remember in the future. Firstly, looking for ways that characters foil each other, in cases like Mildred and Clarisse, Montag and The Hound, and Montag and Clarisse, really helped to explore the characters and the ways that Bradbury wants us to view them and understand them. Characters who foil each other allow us more insight into the characters. Seeing the similarities and contrasts between characters gives us a heightened awareness of them.

We explored different types of symbols as well, which I found very useful. Bradbury purposefully repeats many metaphors, like that of books being like birds. Understanding Bradbury's use of figurative symbols also increases our understanding of the book. We also learned how characters and things, for example The Hound, are a sort of stand-alone, open-ended symbol. We have to figure out on our own what they may or may not be symbolic for - the author does not give us a straight up answer. Having this better understanding of the different types of symbols and how to approach them could come in handy going forward.

Finally, when we were doing things like discussing how Montag describes The Hound, we first recorded our observations and then drew conclusions. This is a very important tip to remember because it's easy to jump straight to the drawing conclusions part, and therefore not making as careful observations. Making careful observations first allows more information to be gathered unbiased.

Klosterman Tree Map

Malcolm X Intro Draft

            In our lives, there are people we meet who we come to care for, respect, and to love. These people play a monumental part in our growth and development, but there are people who hold an even deeper and dearer place in our heart: our families. The people we meet in life show up in the middle of something; of a day, month, year. In the middle of a life that’s already been started. But family is with us from the start, and in most cases is still with us in the end. Other people come and go, but family stays. And we should love them most.

            However, Malcolm X has different ideas on loyalty. When his brother Reginald is accused of adultery during Malcolm’s time in prison, and right after Reginald introducing him to The Nation of Islam, Malcolm stands by him for a little while, but then gives up on him as someone who disobeyed Allah and is now being punished for it. But when later on Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm’s role model and closest friend, is accused of committing the same crime as Reginald, Malcolm goes into complete denial and refuses to accept it. This is surprising because we would expect Malcolm to have a deeper trust in Reginald, his beloved blood brother whom he’s known his entire life than for Elijah Muhammad, someone who showed up much later on. Plus, Reginald had just brought Malcolm into The Nation of Islam, something that completely saved him from his previously “wicked” ways. You would think this would make Malcolm feel an even stronger bond with his brother, instead of something that would break so quickly. And the evidence against Elijah Muhammad was much stronger, so there were more opportunities for Malcolm to realize the truth. So if siblings should feel a deep-seated loyalty for each other and should defend each other more than anyone else, but Malcolm gives up on defending his brother and stands by Elijah Muhammad longer, then why does Malcolm trust and believe in Elijah Muhammad more than Reginald? This is a crucial question to investigate because it can tell us a lot about how Malcolm values people and why, which is something that can help us understand Malcolm’s own morals and the people he felt represented them.

            One way to consider this is that Malcolm stood by Elijah Muhammad longer than he did with Reginald because he looked up to Elijah Muhammad and expected him to be incapable of flaws, whereas Reginald was the younger brother who was still learning right and wrong. An important thing to note here is that Reginald was Malcolm’s younger brother, something that garners less respect and more simple adoration. Malcolm loved Reginald, but expected Reginald to look up to him, not the other way around. However, Malcolm’s view of Elijah Muhammad was very different. As it says in The Autobiography of Malcolm X (as told to Alex Haley) on page 372, Malcolm believed in Elijah Muhammad “Not only as a leader in the ordinary human sense, but also I believed in him as a divine leader. I believed he had no human weaknesses or faults, and that, therefore, he could make no mistakes and that he could do no wrong.” In other words, Malcolm thought of Elijah Muhammad not truly as a human being but as The Messenger of Allah. How was Reginald, who was very human, supposed to compete with that? Elijah Muhammad not only led The Nation of Islam, he practically was The Nation of Islam. If he was a hypocrite, that meant his teachings were all fraud too. Malcolm couldn’t accept that, couldn’t handle having his temporary stability shattered. Reginald at this point in Malcolm’s mind was really just a pawn in the game. He still saw him as a child. And children make mistakes.

Malcolm X Exploratory Draft Reflections

Doreen

Claim: Malcolm accepted The Nation of Islam while in prison because he was going through a hard time and The Nation of Islam seemed to be his chance for freedom.

Question: How did Malcolm X being in prison influence him to join The Nation of Islam?

Trouble: Malcolm went into prison with a set mindset and left with a completely different one. (It's a little hard to pick up on in this draft.)

Situation and Status Quo: People don't undergo their most drastic life changes while in prison.

If people don't experience life-changing epiphanies while in the solitude of prison, but Malcolm during his time in prison is so completely altered that his views change and he joins The Nation of Islam, then what about being in prison influenced him to change?

Something that needs to be included for someone to believe this claim is more background on Malcolm - what his views were like before his time in prison - to demonstrate just how big this change was.

Jesse

Claim: Malcolm changes because of changes in his environment, emotional crises, and the influential figures that pop up throughout his life and change his way of thinking.

Question: Why does Malcolm change so radically and so thoroughly so many times in his life?

Trouble: Malcolm is a leader, yet he never maintains the same mindset for long and his views are constantly changing.

Situation and Status Quo: When leaders develop beliefs, they stick with them.

If leaders are supposed to develop beliefs they want to fight for and stand by them, but Malcolm is a leader whose beliefs are frequently undergoing drastic changes, then what caused Malcolm to change so many times?

Something that needs to be included for someone to believe this claim could be some more specifics about when Malcolm experienced these changes (ex: his age) to show the reader how quickly and drastically these changes happened in his life.

Me

Claim: Malcolm stood by Elijah Muhammad longer than he did with Reginald because he looked up to Elijah Muhammad and expected him to be incapable of flaws, whereas Reginald was the younger brother who was still learning right and wrong.

Question: Why does Malcolm fight the adulterous charges against Elijah Muhammad longer than he does for his brother Reginald?

Trouble: Malcolm loved his little brother dearly, but when Reginald is accused of adultery Malcolm turns on him quicker than he does when Elijah Muhammad is in the same situation.

Situation and Status Quo: Siblings should stand by each other.

If siblings should feel a deep-seated loyalty for each other and should defend each other more than anyone else, but Malcolm gives up on defending his brother and stands by Elijah Muhammad longer, then why does Malcolm trust and believe in Elijah Muhammad more than Reginald?

Something that needs to be included for someone to believe this claim is detailed background on Malcolm's relationship with Reginald in comparison to his relationship with Elijah Muhammad.

Exploratory Draft for Malcolm X

            I am writing about Malcolm’s relationship with Reginald in comparison to his relationship with Elijah Muhammad. Reginald is Malcolm’s blood brother, and the one out of all of his siblings (not including his half-sister Ella) that meant the most to him. Elijah Muhammad is, for a while at least, Malcolm’s closest friend and respected leader. Reginald and Elijah Muhammad have something else in common other than being close with Malcolm and being associated with The Nation of Islam – they both faced accusations of adultery. It’s troubling that Malcolm stands by Elijah Muhammad longer than Reginald, Reginald whom he’s known and loved his whole life, even when the evidence against Elijah Muhammad is greater than the evidence against Reginald.

            This is confusing because Elijah Muhammad is Malcolm’s friend but Reginald is his brother. Reginald is the little brother with hernia that Malcolm looked after and nurtured in childhood. That’s what a lot of the text in Nightmare talks about; Malcolm’s love for his brother. And Malcolm, at his Detroit Red stage took Reginald under his wing and offered to show him the ropes. They had a bond, those two! How did Malcolm give him up so quickly?

            Elijah Muhammad he first heard about in prison. Elijah Muhammad he learned everything from, everything that ended up being false, but nevertheless was a monumental part of Malcolm’s chronology of changes. Why did Malcolm stick by him longer? Why did he forsake Reginald? Was it because Reginald, at the time of the adulterous charges, turned on The Nation of Islam? But why would Malcolm feel more loyalty to The Nation of Islam, something he had just learned about, than to his blood brother? It doesn’t make sense. However, the moment Malcolm heard about The Nation of Islam, he was hooked. He read many books, he lectured the other inmates and tried to convert them, even though he’d only recently been converted himself. Malcolm wasn’t the type to wait, to double-check. He was the type to dive right in.

            Though you would think Malcolm’s loyalties first and foremost would be to his family, it’s debatable. Malcolm loved his half-sister who he met later in his life more than his mother. In fact, when you think about it, most of the people and places from early in his life seemed to be of little importance to him later on. Malcolm considers his “first big turning point” to be when he met Mr. Ostrowski, not all the crazy things that happened to his family in his early years.

            Malcolm, in prison, decides that everything up to that point was him being the brainwashed black man catering to the devil white man. Because he is suddenly forced to question everything he has ever known, everything in his past – and Reginald is a part of his past – does he question Reginald for this reason too?

            This brings us to the topic of who really saved Malcolm in prison. In the chapters Saved and Savior, it’s actually not entirely clear. It is Reginald who brings Malcolm into The Nation of Islam, who hooks him, who encourages him to write to Elijah Muhammad. Reginald was the one who could get through to him when no one else could. Elijah Muhammad gave him the information, but none of that would’ve happened if it weren’t for Reginald. Then why did Malcolm stand by Elijah Muhammad longer?

            My claim is that Reginald looked up to Malcolm who looked up to Elijah Muhammad. It’s like a food chain, really, or a social order. Reginald was below him, in Malcolm’s mind. That doesn’t mean he loved him any less – it might even mean he loved him more, because Malcolm had a thing for those inferior to him – but it does mean that Malcolm puts less faith in him. Elijah Muhammad is pretty much Malcolm’s idol. Malcolm looks up to him. Malcolm admires him. Malcolm is Elijah Muhammad’s Reginald.

            If a child and an adult make the same mistake, you’d be more upset with the adult, because they should have known better. Maybe that’s why Malcolm can’t accept the truth about Elijah Muhammad – because he should’ve known better.

            And although Reginald is Malcolm’s actual brother, Malcolm spent far more time with Elijah Muhammad than with Reginald. Since Malcolm and his siblings were separated during childhood, Malcolm and Reginald weren’t really in the same place very often. Malcolm spent years speaking side-by-side with Elijah Muhammad. Malcolm didn’t even know Reginald that well when Reginald came to visit him in prison. It’s easier to doubt someone you don’t really know than someone you think you do.

            Reginald told Malcolm about The Nation of Islam. That’s one thing. But Elijah Muhammad WAS The Nation of Islam. If Elijah Muhammad was a liar, that meant The Nation of Islam was a lie too. That would mean that everything Malcolm rebuilt his life around and on, and everything that had gotten him out of the gutter, was a lie.

            But Malcolm hadn’t had that degree of trouble accepting changes before.

            But maybe this was different. Maybe it was in a completely different league. As it says on page 372, Malcolm believed in Elijah Muhammad “Not only as a leader in the ordinary human sense, but also I believed in him as a divine leader. I believed he had no human weaknesses or faults, and that, therefore, he could make no mistakes and that he could do no wrong.” He doesn’t think that Elijah Muhammad is an ordinary human, whereas Reginald is very human. Does Malcolm hate Reginald in fact for his humanity? Reginald looks up to Malcolm. That would mean, in a sense, that since Malcolm influenced him, the crimes Reginald has committed Malcolm has indirectly committed too. Is Malcolm afraid to accept his own humanity, his own faults? Especially when he is at the vulnerable time of being in prison? But it is in prison that Malcolm realizes the flaws in how he’s lived.

            Malcolm might’ve seen Elijah Muhammad as a divine leader, maybe that was why he didn’t want to doubt him. But people doubt God as quickly as they doubt humans.

            But if someone told you that your brother and God both committed adultery… well at first I was going to say you’d doubt your brother because he’s human, but in reality wouldn’t you stand by him longer? Because he’s your brother and you know him? But what if your brother is estranged? But even so, you don’t know God. You can’t trust him.

            It’s important to remember that Elijah Muhammad and Reginald being accused of adultery did not happen simultaneously on Malcolm’s timeline. There was a significant gap in between. But wouldn’t Malcolm be more open to the fact that people commit adultery after Reginald’s incident?

            Malcolm’s life had been a fast-paced chronology of changes during the time in his life up to being in prison. Isn’t it easier to doubt things when your life is moving so quickly? During his time with Elijah Muhammad, Malcolm had temporarily achieved a sort of stability. Maybe it seemed impossible to him for anything to come along that would shake that. Or maybe he didn’t want to forfeit his stability and thought that if he didn’t accept Elijah Muhammad’s adultery everything would stay the same and it would just be gone like a passing breeze.